Basket

The very undesirable truth about chemotherapy

. Professor Georges Mathe confirmed to The Express: "If I had a tumor, I would not go in a cancer center"

Prof. Henri Joyeux, cancer in Montpellier, has repeatedly stated that "these are huge financial interests that explain that scientific truth is still too often overlooked:

« 85 % des chimiothérapies sont contestables, voire inutiles « .

This article was written by Sylvie Simon (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvie_Simon), writer and rigorous and courageous journalist. She died Friday, November 8 at the age of 86. In recent years, she fights the ideas by exploring various fields of science and devotes most of its activity to campaign against health misinformation and ecology, highly topical subjects.

She has published several essays on scandals (contaminated blood, mad cows, asbestos, growth hormones, vaccines, etc.).

Hardin B Jones, then Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley in 1956 had already communicated to the press the alarming results of a study of cancer he had to carry for twenty-three years from cancer and who had led to the conclusion that untreated patients do not die faster than those receiving chemotherapy, on the contrary.

"The patients who refused treatment lived an average of twelve and a half. Those who undergo surgery and other traditional treatments lived an average of only three years. "And Dr. Jones also raised the issue of fabulous sums generated by the" CANCER USINESS ".

The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted. (Walter Last, The Ecologist, Vol. 28, No. 2, March-April 1998)

. On 4 October 1985 the Pr G.eorges Mathe confirmed to The Express: "There are more and more cancer because screening is much earlier, but it does not control as well as they say despite chemotherapy which is especially favored by the chemotherapists and laboratories [what he called the "cancer-connection"], and for good reason: they live. If I had a tumor, I would not go in a cancer center "(Cf. Le Monde, 4 May 1988).

In turn, Dr. Martin Shapiro (uclahealth.org/martin-shapiro) wrote in an article "Chemotherapy: perlimpinpin oil? "" Some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that this treatment is useful, others are probably misled by the optimism of scientific publications on chemotherapy. Others respond to a stimulus. Practitioners can earn more by doing chemotherapy in providing solace and healing for dying patients and their families. "(Cf. Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1987).

The very undesirable truth about chemotherapy

This opinion is widely shared by Drs E. Pommateau and Mr. Silver who feel that chemotherapy "is a malignant cell destruction process such as surgery or radiation. It does not solve the fundamental problem of the host reactions that should be a last resort, only to seek to stop the cancerous push "(oncology practice lessons).

For his part, Prof. Henri Joyeux (professeur-joyeux.com), cancer in Montpellier, has repeatedly stated that "These are huge financial interests that explain that scientific truth is still too often neglected: 85% of chemotherapy are questionable or useless".

And for the increase in cases of healing, Dr. Jean-Claude Salomon, director of research at CNRS, oncologist, said the survival rate five years after diagnosis increased only because we know make earlier diagnoses, but if it is not accompanied by a decline in mortality, increasing the percentage of five-year survival is not a sign of progress.

"Early diagnosis often only has the effect of extending the duration of the disease with its attendant anxiety."

This contradicts many statements about the alleged therapeutic advances. "(Cf. Who decides our health. The citizen facing the experts, Bernard Cassou and Michel Schiff, 1998)

Dr. Solomon says that accounts indiscriminately true cancers and tumors that would probably never caused cancerous disease, which contributes to artificially increase the percentage of "cured" of cancer. This also increases, of course, that of "declared" cancer. Another fact confirmed by Dr. Thomas Dao (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dao), who was director of the breast surgery department at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo from 1957 to 1988: "Despite the widespread use of chemotherapy the death rate from breast cancer has not changed in the last 70 years. "

As John Cairns, microbiology professor at Harvard University, who published in 1985 a critical in Scientific American: "Apart from a few rare cancers, it is impossible to detect any improvement in the chemotherapy mortality of the most important cancers. It was never established that any cancer can be cured by chemotherapy. "

New confirmation of Dr. Albert Braverman, hematologist and oncologist New Yorkers in the Lancet: "Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with an optimism not discouraged by an almost inevitable failure [...] no disseminated neoplasm, incurable in 1975 , is curable today. "(Cf. The Cancer in the 1990, Vol. 337, 1991, p.901).

As for Dr. Charles Moertal, an oncologist at the Mayo Clinic, he admits: "Our most effective protocols are full of risks and side effects; and after all the patients we have treated have paid that price, only a small fraction is rewarded with a transitional period of incomplete tumor regression. "

Alan Nixon, former President of the American Chemical Society, is even more radical: "As a chemist trained to interpret publications, it is hard to understand how physicians can ignore the evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good. "

Ralph Moss is not a physician scientist who studies cancer for ages. He writes articles on the subject in prestigious journals such as the Lancet, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New Scientist, and has published a book:

However, most alternative treatments, whatever the evidence of their effectiveness, are forbidden, forcing patients to be heading toward failure because it does not have an alternative. Dr. Maurice Fox, professor emeritus of biology at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) found, like many of his peers, that cancer who refused medical care had a lower mortality rate than those who accepted them.

The Center of the McGill Cancer Canada (cusm.ca/cancer/dashboard) sent a questionnaire to 118 physicians specializing in lung cancer to determine the degree of confidence they granted to products that scientists university were being evaluated. They were asked to imagine that they had cancer and say what drug they choose among six ongoing trials.

There were 79 responses doctors, including 64 or 81% would not agree to participate in trials of chemotherapy with cisplatin that they were tested and 58 other doctors from the same 79 or 73% , felt that the trials in question were unacceptable, being given the ineffectiveness of products and their high toxicity.

For his part, Dr. Ulrich Abel (encognitive.com/node/4361), German epidemiologist Heidelberg-Mannheim Cancer Center reviewed all the documents published on chemotherapy by more than 350 medical centers around the world .

Having analyzed for several years, thousands of publications, he discovered that the overall success rate of chemotherapy worldwide was "dismal", only 3%And that is simply no scientific evidence that chemotherapy can "extend patients' lives significantly suffering from the most common organic cancers."

He describes chemotherapy as "scientific wasteland" and says that at least 80% of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is useless and is similar to the "new clothes the emperor," when neither the doctor nor the patient wish not waive chemotherapy. Dr. Abel concluded: "Many oncologists take it for granted that chemotherapy prolongs the lives of patients. This is an opinion based on an illusion that is not supported by any clinical studies. " This study has never been discussed by the mainstream media and was completely buried. We understand why.

In summary, chemotherapy is highly toxic and it can make the difference between healthy cells and cancer cells. It gradually destroys the immune system can not protect the human body from ordinary diseases. Some 67% of people who die in treating their cancer must to opportunistic infections that are not fought by the immune system.

The most recent and significant study was published by the Journal Clinical Oncology (clinicaloncologyonline.net) and conducted by three famous Australian oncologists, Professor Graeme Morgan of the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Professor Robyn Ward of the University of New South Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr. Michael Barton, a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation Liverpool Health Service in Sydney.

Their painstaking work is based on the analysis of the results of all controlled studies double blind conducted in Australia and the United States regarding the survival of 5 years up to the credit of chemotherapy in adults during the period January 1990 to January 2004, a total of 72 964 patients in Australia and 154,971 in the US, all treated with chemotherapy. This large study shows that we can not claim, as usual, it is only a few patients, which allows systems in place to sweep them with contempt of hand. The authors deliberately opted for an optimistic estimate of the profits, but despite this precaution, the publication shows that chemotherapy contributes only a little over 2% in the survival of patients after 5 years, 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the United States. "Some practitioners however remain optimistic and hope that [8] cytotoxic chemotherapy will prolong the life of cancer patients," the authors said in their introduction. They ask rightly, how it is a therapy that has contributed so little to the survival of patients over the past 20 years, continues to achieve such success in the sales statistics. It is true that we can answer them as little curious or simply panicked patients have no choice: we offer them nothing.

Massoud Mirshahi, researcher at the Pierre and Marie Curie University and his team found in 2009 that new cells of the tumor microenvironment would be involved in resistance to chemotherapy of cancer cells and recurrence with metastases. These cells have been termed "Hospicells" because they serve niches that have the property of fixing a large number of cancer cells and protect them from the action of chemotherapy.

The "Hospicells" come from the differentiation of bone marrow stem cells, and are present in effusion in patients with cancer (ascites, pleural effusions). Cancer cells, clustered around a "Hospicell" form true small cancerous nodules. In these nodules were also identified immuno-inflammatory cells. Electron microscopy showed that there were areas fusion between membranes "Hospicells" and those of cancer cells, allowing the cell material passage to another.

In addition, the researchers observed membrane material of the transfer of "Hospicell" to cancer cells, a phenomenon called trogocytosis. Several other mechanisms, such as the recruitment of immune cells suppressive or secretion of soluble factors by "Hospicells" also help the resistance of cancer cells against chemotherapy. Given this importance, it is suggested that cancer cells "nested" on a "Hospicell" could be considered responsible for residual disease. For research, it is important to find drugs that can both kill cancer cells and "Hospicells".

The most significant study was published by the Journal Clinical Oncology (clinicaloncologyonline.net) and conducted by three famous Australian oncologists, Professor Graeme Morgan of the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Professor Robyn Ward of New South University Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr. Michael Barton, a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation Liverpool Health Service in Sydney.

Other studies have appeared recently: The first, published in the journal Nature, indicates that a large majority of cancer studies are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent. Researchers happen only rarely to replicate the results of larger studies "reference". Among 53 major studies on cancer, yet published in high-level scientific journals, 47 could never be replicated with similar results.

This is not a new matter, since, in 2009, researchers from the University of Michigan's Comprehensive Cancer Center had also published the famous conclusions cancer studies, all biased towards the pharmaceutical industry.

And it remains common knowledge that some drugs against cancer causing metastasis. This long list of publications, all negative and not exhaustive about the "benefits" of chemotherapy, could be explained by the work of some researchers from Harvard Medical School in Boston (USA - meded.hms.harvard.edu), which found that two drugs used in chemotherapy cause the development of new tumors, not the opposite! It is these new drugs that block blood vessels that "feed" the tumor. Specialists call the "anti-angiogenesis" treatments.

These drugs, Gleevec and Sutent (active, imatinib and sunitinib) have a demonstrated effect in reducing tumor size. However, they destroy small cells little studied so far, pericytes, which keep under control the growth of the tumor. Freed of pericytes, the tumor is much easier to spread and to "metastasize" in other organs. Harvard researchers therefore consider now that, although the main tumor decreases in volume due to these drugs, cancer is also much more dangerous for patients! (Cancer Cell, 10 June 2012).

Professor Raghu Kalluri, which published these findings in the journal Cancer Cell, said: "If you do not take into account the growth of the tumor, the results were good. But if you step back and look at all inhibit the blood vessels of the tumor does not contain cancer progression. In fact, the cancer spreads. "

The painstaking work of three famous Australian oncologists (whose study is more surprising), is based on the analysis of the results of all controlled studies double blind conducted in Australia and the United States regarding the survival of 5 years up credit of chemotherapy in adults during the period January 1990 to January 2004, a total of 72 964 patients in Australia and 154,971 in the US, all treated with chemotherapy. This large study shows that we can not claim, as usual, it is only a few patients, which allows systems in place to sweep them with contempt of hand.

The authors deliberately opted for an optimistic estimate of the profits, but despite this precaution, the publication shows that chemotherapy contributes only a little over 2% in the survival of patients after 5 years, 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the United States. Finally, a study published in the journal NATURE MEDICINE in 2012, could change the idea that we have of chemotherapy.

Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle (fredhutch.org) have indeed found that it would trigger in healthy cells producing a protein that nourish tumors. While researchers were working on resistance to chemotherapy in cases of metastatic breast, prostate, lung and colon, they discovered by chance that chemotherapy not only does not cure the cancer, but rather active growth and extent of the cancer cells.

Chemotherapy, a standard method of cancer treatment today requires healthy cells release a protein that actually feeds cancer cells and makes them grow and proliferate. According to the study, chemotherapy induces the release in healthy cells of a protein, WNT16B, which helps to promote the survival and growth of cancer cells.

Chemotherapy also damages definitively DNA of healthy cells, long-term damage that persists long after the end of treatment with chemo.

"When WNT16B protein is secreted, it would interact with cancer cells close and would grow, spread and more importantly, resist subsequent therapy," explained co-author of the study Peter Nelson Research Center Fred Hutchinson cancer in Seattle on this completely unexpected discovery.

"Our results indicate that in benign cells return responses can directly contribute to a dynamic growth of the tumor," said the full team for what it has seen. Which is to say: Avoid chemotherapy increases the chances to recover health. How is it that a therapy that has contributed so little to the survival of patients over the past 20 years continues to achieve such success in the sales statistics. It is true that the little curious or simply panicked patients have no choice: we offer them nothing but "the Protocol".

At what pressure the current oncologist is it subject to select the patient's treatment? Formerly, chose the right doctor in good conscience, according to the Hippocratic oath, the best treatment for the patient. He thus pledged his personal responsibility after a long discussion with his patient. "Since the 1990s - and particularly so increasingly authoritarian since the 2004 Cancer Plan - the freedom to treat the oncologist disappeared in France and some other Western countries.

In fallacious pretext of quality of care, all patient records are "discussed" multidisciplinary meeting where, in fact, the clinical trial underway testing new drugs is required by the "community". The practitioner who wishes to derogate from that system must be explained and incurs all the possible troubles, especially the view of the service to which he participates lose his license to practice oncology. "

Dr. Nicole Delépine (docteur.nicoledelepine.fr/) summarizes what can happen when we move away from strict protocols to suit the individual circumstances of the patients. Only 3 of 4 doctors dare refuse chemo for themselves, in case of cancer, due to its inefficiency on the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human body. But this detail is hidden the sick.

Dr. Jacques Lacaze, a graduate of cancer and ardent defender of Dr. Gernez's work on the subject, believes that the only real solution is prevention: "Indeed, cancer is a hidden life of 8 years on average. During this long period, the cancer embryo is very vulnerable, no can derail.

All experts agree that reality, but very few of them advocate a policy of prevention. Yet it is easy to implement. We know that cancer incidence curve starts around age 40, so that a future cancer moved to 32 years.

The SUVIMAX study showed that a simple supplementation vitamins and minerals sufficient to lower the incidence of cancer by about 30%. The study lasted 8 years. No impact on public health policy has been drawn. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry does not want to hear about it: you do not saw the branch on which we sit.

CHEMOTHERAPY ... .AND PHARMACEUTICAL CARTEL

The medical profession is under the control of "big bosses" who make rain or shine and are well paid by industry (look on the internet you will see that most of these big bosses received wages one way or another at a laboratory). And the majority of basic doctors follow without flinching! And woe to those who think otherwise and who question vaccines or antibiotics or chemotherapy. [...] I should add, because it corresponds to my practice and to real studies by some specialized services, many complementary or alternative of qualified products are effective, but banned and persecuted by the authorities to the orders of the pharmaceutical industry. "

It should be remembered in this case that only the pressure of the persons concerned, that is, all of us will bend the system.

Sources: mediapart.fr

Related Searches Google: chemotherapy success rate, cure cancer without chemo, chemotherapy kills, chemotherapy does not cure cancer, can we refuse chemotherapy, chemotherapy for or against, refuse chemotherapy forum chemotherapy that kills side effects chemo how long chemotherapy long-term side effects, treatment chemotherapy, chemo without side effects, chemo cancer or not, after chemotherapy, chemo does not cure cancer, danger chemotherapy, chemotherapy success rate, cure cancer without chemo, the it is effective chemo, chemo or not cancer

Biologiquement.com

The Biologiquement.com laboratory specializes in the promotion and distribution of 100% natural products. A range of products rich in compounds that are biologically active to find or keep vitality, recommended for children in the growth phase, students, athletes and seniors. All these products are fair trade.

We chose fair prices for our products, so there is no free shipping. When you have free shipping on other online store, these costs are included in the product price.

Biologiquement.com is an online sales site completely secure, benefiting from an SSL certificate on the entire site, payment page included.

Our capsules are manufactured based on pullulan, tapioca obtained by fermentation. No GMO, gluten, titanium and without preservatives, our capsules totally respect your consumer approach to natural, healthy products. They also agree to a vegan diet, halal, kosher and approved by the "Vegetarian Society". The capsules can be opened to facilitate absorption of the product, 3 capsules represent a small teaspoon.